Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem is, Sean Carroll is the Richard Dawkins of physics. He has chosen the path of being a well-paid “atheist celebrity” who pontificates in areas far outside his actual area of scientific expertise. Everything other than hardline materialism, even the work of fellow scientists with credentials equal or superior to his, is dismissed as woo-woo because this is his lucrative shtick. He preaches to an atheist choir that uncritically laps it up. He is no different in substance from a New Age celebrity like Deepak Chopra.
The fact is, hardline materialism is a crumbling paradigm. Consciousness studies in particular, but even mainstream physics, are rendering it obsolete. This is a FACT, which I’m not going to argue with internet goofs who don’t know what they are talking about. If you have an interest beyond internet nonsense, I would refer you to the just-published WHO ARE YOU, REALLY? by analytic philosopher Joshua Rasmussen, which is a deep, science-informed analysis of consciousness. But no, you’ll confidently tell us what you think of Rasmussen and his theory of substance consciousness without ever having read a page.
The crumbling of the materialistic paradigm does, of course, open the door to survival. Materialists cannot allow the slightest crack in the edifice – which is why we get shrieking characters like Carroll and Dawkins, precisely as Thomas Kuhn described 60 years ago. Numerous serious philosophers and scientists, including atheists like Thomas Nagle, now believe materialism is 180 degrees off-base and that consciousness is in fact the foundation of reality.
Far from being impossible, survival is increasingly seeming entirely plausible. Carroll’s article is so far out of date that to cite it or take it seriously is simply an admission of ignorance.
Do I know beyond a shadow of doubt that materialism is “impossible,” consciousness definitely survives bodily death and Christianity is the cosmic Truth? No, but I guarantee you my convictions in these areas are better-informed and more current than 99.99% of the same old, same old that gets posted here by people who prefer jousting with other mental masturbators to the tune of 25,000 posts to anything resembling serious study.
The problem is, Sean Carroll is the Richard Dawkins of physics. He has chosen the path of being a well-paid “atheist celebrity” who pontificates in areas far outside his actual area of scientific expertise.
I agree with you that Dawkin's biggest problem is that he pontificates outside his area of actual expertise, on the regular. I've never much cared for his popularized writings that diverge from his actual field.
Until this thread, I had never heard of Sean Carroll but if the first thing quoted from him is hyperbole, it's a bad sign.
While I now think the preponderance of evidence is massively against theism, as a former theist I understand its siren call and primal appeal, too.
The problem is, Sean Carroll is the Richard Dawkins of physics. He has chosen the path of being a well-paid “atheist celebrity” who pontificates in areas far outside his actual area of scientific expertise. Everything other than hardline materialism, even the work of fellow scientists with credentials equal or superior to his, is dismissed as woo-woo because this is his lucrative shtick. He preaches to an atheist choir that uncritically laps it up. He is no different in substance from a New Age celebrity like Deepak Chopra.
More ad hominems, Irkle, instead of addressing the arguments. Not all of us uncritically lap anything up, we agree with him because he is correct, the theists have yet to provide a credible explanation for how life could exist after death. Which is why you have to dismiss Carroll, because you do not have the evidence for your claims.
Carroll's views are supported by neuroscientists, because the evidence is overwhelming that consciousness is a product of the brain, and until there is stronger evidence for any alternatives
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
The fact is, hardline materialism is a crumbling paradigm. Consciousness studies in particular, but even mainstream physics, are rendering it obsolete. This is a FACT, which I’m not going to argue with internet goofs who don’t know what they are talking about.
Good, because I DO know what I am talking about. My degree was based on neuroscience, as was my last year project. Obviously, I do not need to talk to you, because you have just eliminated yourself as an internet goof who does not know what they are talking about.
And your FACT is not a fact, consciousness studies along with AI still point to a material source, the brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
If you have an interest beyond internet nonsense, I would refer you to the just-published WHO ARE YOU, REALLY? by analytic philosopher Joshua Rasmussen, which is a deep, science-informed analysis of consciousness. But no, you’ll confidently tell us what you think of Rasmussen and his theory of substance consciousness without ever having read a page.
Yet you have dismissed real neuroscience without reading any of this:
And after poisoning the well, you want us to accept the words from a philosopher of religion. Considering the modern crisis in philosophy, I will rely on what the actual science says instead of buying a book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
The crumbling of the materialistic paradigm does, of course, open the door to survival. Materialists cannot allow the slightest crack in the edifice – which is why we get shrieking characters like Carroll and Dawkins, precisely as Thomas Kuhn described 60 years ago. Numerous serious philosophers and scientists, including atheists like Thomas Nagle, now believe materialism is 180 degrees off-base and that consciousness is in fact the foundation of reality.
And yet, after 2000 years of science pointing to materialism (I prefer the more accurate term naturalism), we still find the paradigm is not really crumbling, despite the interesting alternatives that still lack explanatory power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
Far from being impossible, survival is increasingly seeming entirely plausible. Carroll’s article is so far out of date that to cite it or take it seriously is simply an admission of ignorance.
1) it is not Carroll's article, Elmira Tanatarova wrote it, and 2) the points raised are still relevant, which is why you did not address any of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
Do I know beyond a shadow of doubt that materialism is “impossible,” consciousness definitely survives bodily death and Christianity is the cosmic Truth? No, but I guarantee you my convictions in these areas are better-informed and more current than 99.99% of the same old, same old that gets posted here by people who prefer jousting with other mental masturbators to the tune of 25,000 posts to anything resembling serious study.
Irkle, your usual shrieking, assertions and fallacies have been proven to be nothing but hot air by people who have done the relevant studies, and who keep up to date with newer findings. One of us has a relevant degree, and it is not you.
I agree with you that Dawkin's biggest problem is that he pontificates outside his area of actual expertise, on the regular. I've never much cared for his popularized writings that diverge from his actual field.
Until this thread, I had never heard of Sean Carroll but if the first thing quoted from him is hyperbole, it's a bad sign.
While I now think the preponderance of evidence is massively against theism, as a former theist I understand its siren call and primal appeal, too.
You've never heard of Sean Carroll? He's one of my favorite theoretical physicists.
More ad hominems, Irkle, instead of addressing the arguments. Not all of us uncritically lap anything up, we agree with him because he is correct, the theists have yet to provide a credible explanation for how life could exist after death. Which is why you have to dismiss Carroll, because you do not have the evidence for your claims.
Carroll's views are supported by neuroscientists, because the evidence is overwhelming that consciousness is a product of the brain, and until there is stronger evidence for any alternatives
Good, because I DO know what I am talking about. My degree was based on neuroscience, as was my last year project. Obviously, I do not need to talk to you, because you have just eliminated yourself as an internet goof who does not know what they are talking about.
And your FACT is not a fact, consciousness studies along with AI still point to a material source, the brain.
Yet you have dismissed real neuroscience without reading any of this:
And after poisoning the well, you want us to accept the words from a philosopher of religion. Considering the modern crisis in philosophy, I will rely on what the actual science says instead of buying a book.
And yet, after 2000 years of science pointing to materialism (I prefer the more accurate term naturalism), we still find the paradigm is not really crumbling, despite the interesting alternatives that still lack explanatory power.
1) it is not Carroll's article, Elmira Tanatarova wrote it, and 2) the points raised are still relevant, which is why you did not address any of them.
Irkle, your usual shrieking, assertions and fallacies have been proven to be nothing but hot air by people who have done the relevant studies, and who keep up to date with newer findings. One of us has a relevant degree, and it is not you.
1. The beloved Irkle is clearly living rent-free inside your head. I've asked the moderators to either admonish you or ban my account if there is genuine concern. Unlike you, apparently, this forum is of very little significance to my life.
2. I believe your knee-jerk response underscores my point. Wikipedia - really? "Poisoning the well" - really? "Shrieking" - really? Your response is almost completely lacking in substance, unless someone regards the speculation and bald assertions of an internet goof calling himself Harry Diogenes as authoritative.
3. Joshua Rasmussen is not a "philosopher of religion." He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy with a Ph.D. from Notre Dame "whose area of expertise is analytic metaphysics with a focus on basic categories of reality, such as objects, ideas and necessary existence." He is author of several books, including Defending the Correspondence Theory of Truth (Cambridge University Press, 2014) and Necessary Existence (with Pruss; Oxford University Press, 2015), He has published regularly in peer-reviewed journals since 2013.
Your characterization and dismissal of him as a philosopher of religion - obviously without knowing anything about him - underscores the knee-jerk, non-substantive character of your responses. You must be a very bored individual with a great deal of time on your hands - or perhaps you are the internet version of a bag lady, wandering the forum streets with your shopping cart, babbling inanities that no one takes seriously.
1. The beloved Irkle is clearly living rent-free inside your head. I've asked the moderators to either admonish you or ban my account if there is genuine concern. Unlike you, apparently, this forum is of very little significance to my life.
2. I believe your knee-jerk response underscores my point. Wikipedia - really? "Poisoning the well" - really? "Shrieking" - really? Your response is almost completely lacking in substance, unless someone regards the speculation and bald assertions of an internet goof calling himself Harry Diogenes as authoritative.
3. Joshua Rasmussen is not a "philosopher of religion." He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy with a Ph.D. from Notre Dame "whose area of expertise is analytic metaphysics with a focus on basic categories of reality, such as objects, ideas and necessary existence." He is author of several books, including Defending the Correspondence Theory of Truth (Cambridge University Press, 2014) and Necessary Existence (with Pruss; Oxford University Press, 2015), He has published regularly in peer-reviewed journals since 2013.
Your characterization and dismissal of him as a philosopher of religion - obviously without knowing anything about him - underscores the knee-jerk, non-substantive character of your responses. You must be a very bored individual with a great deal of time on your hands - or perhaps you are the internet version of a bag lady, wandering the forum streets with your shopping cart, babbling inanities that no one takes seriously.
What's wrong with Wikipedia. They provide more footnotes and references than say...you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
